Would you give up your relatively high reasoning ability to be happy?
>>7755737
Trump has 156 IQ, seems to have lived a balanced happy life.
why cant I have both too?
>>7755753
>Trump has 156 IQ,
So he just acts and speaks like an idiot?
>>7755753
>why cant I have both too?
Because only .001% of people can have that
>>7755755
Minorities are called minorities for a reason. He's basically calling upon the largest demographic in America and feeding them what they want to hear and at the same time trying to be a controversial as possible to get more media attention.
>>7755737
No, because that's not what's keeping me from being happy, my own life choices and cowardice is.
>>7755755
>So he just acts and speaks like an idiot?
All politicians do.
I find it so ridiculous when middle class plebs and avid redditors refer to politicians as stupid and even try to look down on them. Anyone who actually comes into contact with politicians knows they are usually the smartest person in the room, you have to play stupid in public because the overwhelming majority of the human population is stupid. But also don't mistake the purposeful use of simple English and "(s)he doesn't agree with my eco chamber's viewpoints :(" for stupidity. Usually your group think has gaping flaws that smarter people have already seen. They are appealing to the majority, not trying to "debate" your irrelevant pasty white ass.
>>7755737
They're not mutually exclusive. I just have to try my best to utilize my reasoning abilities to achieve happiness.
>>7755778
I think Sarah Palin was truly stupid.
>>7755737
>i can still enjoy the simple pleasures with high reasonong
>i cannot enjoy anything else without them
>>7755790
She was an anomaly that turned out to actually be stupid, which is why there are entire movies based on her stupidity, and yet the plebs loved her.
>>7755737
>relatively high reasoning ability
>/sci/
this is unironically one of the most stupid boards on 4chan. pretty much every single person here is a popsci faggot who doesn't know shit except how to jerk off to his online test IQ.
>>7755753
trump paid someone to report that he has an IQ of 156.
i doubt he could reason about the markov property, or even how to define a stateless function, in any terms he chooses
>>7755737
I would give it up to be with my waifu (left)
>>7755778
Exactly. Like Hitler said
>All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.
>>7755811
There are more people spreading that stupid meme on here than there are actual people like that.
>>7755818
when you prove it i'll believe it
>would you give up x to be happy
Yes. However I find it hard to imagine a realistic situation where giving up my intelligence would accomplish that.
>>7756217
>>7755737 (OP)
This wouldn't work without fundamentally changing "me". I would still be miserable, just with the addition of knowing how crippled I was.
Your mental faculties and awareness are not strictly what makes you unhappy, they also provide happiness. This dichotomy has some truth to it, but it's useless as a whole.
>>7755778
>All politicians do.
That's a gross oversimplification.
>>7756225
What's the difference?
*tips*
>>7755755
Of course.
>>7755737
i do it frequently by drinking to inebriation
just blue-pill my shit up captain
>>7755737
Why? I have both.
>>7755866
NONONONONONONONONNO REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
THIS PICTURE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE AYASE IN IT REEEEEEEEEEE
>>7757200
You wouldn't be on 4chan if you were happy
>>7755737
Wouldn't a relatively high reasoning ability permit you to find a third solution to this kind of arbitrarily-defined hypothetical situation?
>>7755818
From what I read, the IQ was derived from his lowest possible SAT score to enter the college he went to, because at the time the SAT could actually measure it reasonably well.
I dunno, that line of reasoning could also be complete shit for the basis of his IQ score but whatever.
>>7757215
maybe he's happy but bored?
>>7755866
Good. Kirino is mine
>>7755737
My girlfriend has extremely low reasoning ability and her level of happiness is very unstable. She can be the happiest person in the world one moment, then suddenly she gets furious or upset about trivial bullshit and stays mad for hours.
No I wouldn't want to trade.
>>7755737
It depends on what the gain of happiness entails.
>>7755737
I just wanted to have a normal life as a kid
It feels like a chunk of me is irreparably damaged but now I'm kind of happy due to my slightly above average reasoning ability
I'll make due with what I have thanks
>>7755737
Yes. I'm not doing anything with mine.
>>7757340
>My girlfriend has extremely low reasoning ability
Why would you go near that?
>>7755737
But I'm happy Anon
>>7755737
Isn't that why people smoke weed?
>Long-term effects? What long-term effects? What could possibly go wrong?
>>7757423
Tried an edible once, tasted like shit, tingled for a few hours while trying to sleep, all and all it was not a good experience.
>>7755815
Damn..... this hit too close to home.
>>7757271
>There's no such thing as a school being lenient to get in on people who's parents made a massive donation to the school.
>>7757646
Do you have a credible source on Trump's dad buying him into college
>>7755737
Jokes on you, 131 IQ and very fucking happy.
>inb4 le IQ meme
Well, is there any other quick measure of inherent intellectual superiority that I can show to send the message that I am smart and happy? If so, let me know.
Anyways the 'smart people are sad' meme is bullshit. It really depends. If you have someone supposedly smart who wonders about philosophy and about his meaningless existance in the universe then there is your problem.
Anyone who even thinks of philosophy is by default a complete moron.
I don't care about anything. I study mathematics and do well. I go to parties to fuck bitches, read books, work on 'art', have a sustainable amount of fuckbuddies and come to 4chan to shame philosofags and libfags for being inferior.
I am as happy as one can be and I am even more happy because I can enjoy the simple pleasures of life (like fucking) while still keeping near perfect grades because its fucking easy.
I don't do drugs though but that is because I'm not stupid. I don't even do 'brain' enhancers or whatever you call it. That shit is literally 'this pill will make your penis bigger!' for people who were born retarded and can't accept their life as a designated Mc Donalds cashier.
Live with it, fags.
>>7757697
>Anyone who even thinks of philosophy is by default a complete moron.
Intelligent opinion there, anon
>>7757702
>Philosophy and philosofags:
>I want to understand myself and understand the nature of our world.
Want to understand yourself? Learn mathematics and biology/psychology.
Want to understand the world you live in? Learn mathematics and physics
and
>inb4 all sciences have philosophy at their core
No, that's bullshit. In some really expanded sense of what science is that makes sense but the truth is that no scientist has to learn about philosophers or about their opinions. The numbers do the talking for us.
Philosophy is just a glorified 'I have opinions' degree.
>>7757697
topkek, right
>>7757726
Not all of the nature of the universe, and any given aspect of something, can viably be explained mechanistically. Systems are too complex, they're too large, they're too variable, and even if you could in many cases you still couldn't. Your issue stems from two places, the first is you don't have an accurate definition or understanding of what philosophy is. The second is you're just prattling on for a lot of what you're saying, when all you really mean to communicate is "if you want to know, then try". You're not actually thinking about how to do it.
It is true that a lot of older philosophical questions have been reconciled with scientific endeavor. As time goes on, that will probably happen for more, but most will stay in the realm of philosophy.
>the truth
Stop using that word. Truth isn't a thing that matters, it's all numbers. Resolving higher meaning and implication through one's faculties as well, is not necessary. You desire to escape philosophy because you have a dislike of it. So stop using phrases like this.
>no scientist has to learn about philosophers or about their opinions
I agree with this. Though it can help, and you're going to be influenced by their ideas whether you like it or not. Even if you generate them or a similar idea yourself.
>degree
Explains why everything out of your mouth is stupid.
>>7757732
>Not all of the nature of the universe, and any given aspect of something, can viably be explained mechanistically
So we need to turn to philosophy? Sorry but that is laughable.
> Truth isn't a thing that matters
So philosophy is anti-science. I already knew that but it is nice to get confirmation.
> Though it can help
No. In college all the classes I take are crucial for my success as I professional. Replacing even the easiest of them for philosophy would decrease the value of my education. And in my free time I can also read books on mathematics instead of books about people who had opinions.
>Explains why everything out of your mouth is stupid.
You are aware that there are actual Philosophy majors out there? I am not making that up. There are people that stupid.
People who do philosphy degrees are stupid and they study philosophers so those philosphers must be stupid because by reading their opinions, philosophy majors become stupid.
I read on mathematicians (or their work, specifically) and that makes me smarter everyday. So those mathematicians are also smart because it is by reading their work that I become smarter and more useful to society.
All you have is... you can't know nothing?
Indeed, you can't know nothing. Because you subscribe to dumb opinions. I can know potentially everything because I study mathematics. The actual rules and methods that determine our reality.
>>7757737
>So we need to turn to philosophy?
You're not turning anywhere, you've been philosophizing all along, to some extent. Always have, always will.
>So philosophy is anti-science.
Science is based on philosophical ideas. The two are intertwined.
>books
You still don't understand what philosophy is.
>The actual rules and methods that determine our reality.
Nice philosophical position you've got there.
I wrote a post about this already, and don't really feel like rehashing it. People who are philosophically inclined will better understand their world, and themselves. If perception and capacity to generate a range of thoughts was a continuous spectrum, philosophical thought would be widening it. That's not to say philosophy cannot get in the way, but that really depends on the individual. For example becoming obsessed with verifying whether or not space is quantized might get in the way of a physicists work. Becoming fixated on determining whether the Earth, the grand machine it is, was not itself comparable to a body. They might begin to search for the mind of this grand organism, this machine, with which we are only parts. Etc.
See this post:
>>7755596
>>7755737
what a stupid thread
>>7757741
>Science is based on philosophical ideas
Wrong. Science was invented by people who wanted real explanations instead of philosphical bullshit.
>>7757775
Science is based on epistemological and ontological ideas, it was more of a smooth gradient of change.
This idea you have of people getting fed up by philosophical musings and deciding fuck I'll find the real truth, is entirely false. You want to tell yourself science was the result of people who were more critically minded, driven, and reasonable, emerging then overthrowing something that didn't work. This gratifies you by association.
And wish as you like, it just ain't so. Read the post I linked. Both eastern and western philosophy created the concept of "atoms" independently, and you owe it to philosophers for anyone trying to figure out anything at all. Learn some history and get some perspective, this thing you're doing is disgusting. and if you're so into science, it borders on shameful. Get over it.
>>7757783
This
>>7757783
Reality check: Science as well as the rest of society doesn't give a shit about your made up and utterly pointless "epistemological and ontological" quackery. You're not deep for having these kindergarten tier thoughts. Get over it and get a real job.
>>7757783
>. Both eastern and western philosophy created the concept of "atoms" independently
Good for them really. This is why I actually respect ancient philosophers because they did as much as they could with the little they had.
But that is no more. Why do you waste your time reading modern philosophy (read modern as: anything after the greeks).
People like you who waste their time reading philosophy AND people who go to college to study philosophy are the complete morons I am talking about.
Say all you want about science coming from philosophy but I doubt there is any philosopher working with terence tao on pure mathematics. There is no philosopher next to black science man helping him study the cosmos.
Philosophers are not needed. They are a relic of the past.
>>7757805
Have fun stumbling around in the dark, spending your life being manipulated by people who are willing (or able) to think more than you. Call me a prick, but you're not worth the time, and there is little I can do. If you want to drag yourself out of the intellectual pit you've dug for yourself one day, good luck. I hope that happens for you soon.
>>7757807
You don't get it. Any decent scientist very likely IS a philosopher, as are you. No one just mindlessly follows and collects data. No one just incrementally chips away at something and has no view of the bigger picture. Everyone who is decent at what they do is willing to question what it all "is", what it can be, how it can be, why it can be. Why it got that way and what it will become. This is what guides a good deal of endeavor and ideas about where and how to look.
Any decent scientist is willing to question the nature of their own mind, their perception, and their reason. They are aware of the limitations of their mind and any traps they might fall into. They are aware of how their faculties quantize and skew their inputs, they are aware of what a reasonable and useful definition of "knowing" is, as well as the means for it to occur. They are aware of sources of error both specific to the topic, and in a more general and abstract sense.
These are essentials. They are not optional if you want to be anything other than some moron mindlessly riding the waves of "I know" and "I don't know." Which in reality, won't work for long.
It's not about reading books. It's not about some fucking degree. It's about knowing how to think in a certain way, and actively doing so.
If you take one thing away from this, it is the following. Philosophy is simply thinking about human experience, capacity, and the human condition itself. The nature of all else tends to follow. And that's it. Some aspects are old world relics reconciled by science, some are not. Some cannot be.
>>7757830
>Have fun stumbling around in the dark, spending your life being manipulated by people who are willing (or able) to think more than you.
Epic projection, famalam. It is you who is too dumb to think on his own. Hence why you need "philosophy". I reject every dogma. I use my own critical thinking to question everything. That's why I'm a STEM person. Now take your undifferentiated fedora platitudes back to reddit, kiddo. You're shitting up our science&math board with your ignorant drivel.
>>7757836
>Hence why you need "philosophy".
This doesn't even make sense. What are you actually trying to say?
>I reject every dogma.
Good job, bud! You decided to make knowledge a framework with inherent uncertainty of all elements, and only weight things by degree of likelihood. And yet you cling to the idea that you aren't a philosopher... Maybe you should ask yourself why that is.
>I use my own critical thinking to question everything. That's why I'm a STEM person.
That has little to do with STEM, unfortunately.
>>7755737
Check literally any thread on this fucking site and if you still think people here have "relatively high reasoning ability" kill yourself by immolation.
